For his failures, Rumsfeld must go

[Scyth]

For his failures, Rumsfeld must go

Paul D. Eaton (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=Paul D. Eaton&sort=swishrank) The New York Times
http://www.iht.com/images/article/spacer.gif
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006
http://www.iht.com/images/icon/null.gif
http://www.iht.com/images/icon/null.gif
http://www.iht.com/images/icon/null.gif
FOX ISLAND, Washington (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=FOX ISLAND, Washington&sort=swishrank) During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote was: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."
By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.
In the five years he has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.
I thought we had a glimmer of hope last November when General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced off with Rumsfeld on the question of how U.S. soldiers should react if they witnessed illegal treatment of prisoners by Iraqi authorities. (Pace's view was that U.S. soldiers should intervene, while Rumsfeld's position was that they should simply report the incident to superiors.)
Unfortunately, the general backed down, giving the impression that America's senior man in uniform is just as intimidated by Rumsfeld as was his predecessor, General Richard Myers.
Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the U.S. Army finds itself severely undermanned - cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
Only General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff when President George W. Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Rumsfeld retaliated by naming Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since.
Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the army; rather, it increases only Special Operations forces, by a token 15 percent, maybe 1,500 troops.
Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war - ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like General Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi forces might melt away, leading to chaos.
It is all too clear that Shinseki was right: Several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.
Last, you do not expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction companies to build barracks was withheld; contracts for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi army were rewritten back in Washington.
So, what to do?
First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground. Perhaps a proven Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman could repair fissures that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and the Pentagon big shots.
More vital in the longer term, Congress must assert itself. Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call U.S. generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently, so that their opinions and needs are known to the men they lead. Then when they are asked if they have enough troops - and no soldier has ever had enough of anything, more is always better - the reply is public.
Our most important, and sometimes most severe, judges are our subordinates. That is a fact I discovered early in my military career. It is, unfortunately, a lesson Rumsfeld seems incapable of learning.
Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004

[Mastermind]

Yeah, thats' just what America needs right now..."A proven Democrat" leading our troops...vomit, vomit, vomit...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I always enjoy it when a commentator utterly abandons legitimacy in an effort to make a point. The particulars of Rumsfeld's tenure have nothing to do with why this bunch think he should go. They've been saying he's no good since before he even did anything. The very best part is that it's so blatantly obvious that they would never, ever, in a million years, support the things that they are saying he should have done. They never would have supported a wider, larger, more expensive war, or (gasp) field commanders controlling the money.

We get down to brass tacks in the last paragraph where the author laments the halcyon days of yore when the Democrats mattered. "Too much power in the executive branch" - that's their battle cry until a Democrat gets back in there.

I'm not completely pleased with Rumsfeld, but I wouldn't be completely pleased with anybody. But I don't see Iraq as a failure to begin with, so I'm more likely to asses credit than blame. I don't see victory as a foregone conclusion, especially since half of our government, and most of our media views failure as a stepping stone to a better career.

[hauptman]

I agree with this article at all. Rumsfeld just made a lot of failures showing that he is neither able to handle the position of Defense Secretary nor he is competent enough.

[Scyth]

The author however is not a regular commentator, but a retired general who actually served in Iraq. How do you view the mounting criticism that Rumsfeld is getting from the top brass?

[KB]

Rumsfeld needs to go, but I am not sure Eaton is the guy to make the recommendations. IIRC, he was the guy that Gen Petraeus replaced to oversee training of the Iraqi Army.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The author however is not a regular commentator, but a retired general who actually served in Iraq. How do you view the mounting criticism that Rumsfeld is getting from the top brass?

I'd say that some of it is justified, some is not. Things are obviously not as we would like in Iraq - that does not mean that it's anybody's fault (other than the enemy) - it is simply reality. Our victory is not pre-ordained. If it doesn't work Rumsfeld's way, maybe we should look at doing things another way. But IMHO it's foolish to sit around blaming him for not doing things in a manner that never would have been acceptable to Congress to begin with. Saying that we should have gone in with 200,000 additional troops is asinine - the author may as well have dinged Rumsfeld for not going into battle with a fleet of giant robots. He (like everybody else) has to operate within a narrow formula of acceptable cost vs. benefit.

[sp2c]

did he speak up when he was in Iraq?

[Bob Lawbla]

I believe Rumsfeld has tendered his resignation on at least two occasions and both were denied.

Here's one.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/10/04/rumsfeld/index.html

[usa320]

Yeah, thats' just what America needs right now..."A proven Democrat" leading our troops...vomit, vomit, vomit...


x2.

What America needs leading its troops are skilled and experienced commanders. Not democrats. I think this guy is a tool for even trying to say that politics should determine who is leading our forces. Everyone knows what happens when politicians start making tactical decisions...see vietnam.

[ElHombre]

I'd say that some of it is justified, some is not. Things are obviously not as we would like in Iraq - that does not mean that it's anybody's fault (other than the enemy) - it is simply reality. Our victory is not pre-ordained. If it doesn't work Rumsfeld's way, maybe we should look at doing things another way. But IMHO it's foolish to sit around blaming him for not doing things in a manner that never would have been acceptable to Congress to begin with. Saying that we should have gone in with 200,000 additional troops is asinine - the author may as well have dinged Rumsfeld for not going into battle with a fleet of giant robots. He (like everybody else) has to operate within a narrow formula of acceptable cost vs. benefit.


horsepucky. either rumsfeld is responsible to the POTUS for the military or he isn't. rumsfeld has been given everything he asked for and the results are clear, he's a failure.

of course, this is all moot. bush just said a little while ago that he's pleased with rumsfeld's performance as SoD. which just gives further evidence that bush has no idea how to do his job either.

[toad]

Yeah...I have to agree the writer gave it away near the end with that 'we need to give it to a proven democrat' comment. 2sheds, as usual was right.

And his logic, that if something is not 100% right - it is a failure, is a real stretch in logical thinking also.

Saying that there is an insurgency, so someone must be to blame for something. Or that troop numbers aren't what they should be so there must be a failure....is a bit weak. As if when there isn't 100% agreement among politicians - we must have had a failure?

By that standard I could declare that...

Medicare is a failure. People are still getting sick.

The War on Poverty is a failure. There are still poor people.

Social Security is a failure. Not all seniors can afford BMWs.

...and then demand to see an exit stratergy to all those failures.



Sorry, but even trying to give the author a break, I still think that its just another ex-general who wants to play politics and be a critic. You can't swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting one of those.

[melon]

Haha, bring out the dead horse. Lets allow those inclined a chance to swing it a few times more, if it helps them sleep at night.

I wish I had a crystal ball to predict the future, see into our enemies organization, intent and plans, and of course, the audacity to use 20/20 hindsight to bash people in a tough situation, who carry more responsibility than those who criticize could ever imagine or hope to shoulder.

[eindhoven]

I support my military and my soldeirs but I dont support Rumsfeld's idiotic views of what this Army needs to be. He is a moron on the level with that Bohemian corporal when it comes to defense spending and his defense views.

Other nations are building heavy, we are going light...light in everything. We are replacing heavy MGs with light ones, armored vehicles with light skinned vehicles, ground based combat with an ever increasing eye in the sky role to dictate movement on the ground. You cant take a crap without asking JOC for permission.

It's as if he loved the cold war so much he scaled Soviet force doctrine into ours. Do your own comparitive analysis on Soviet weapons systems, just remember to scale it down and you'll reach Rumsfeld so called vision.

Children throw in letters of resignation and Rumsfeld is apparently Bush's little child. Unfortunately for us, Bush is all to willing to pop it out everytime Rumy needs some cry tit.

[melon]

I support my military and my soldeirs but I dont support Rumsfeld's idiotic views of what this Army needs to be. He is a moron on the level with that Bohemian corporal when it comes to defense spending and his defense views.

Other nations are building heavy, we are going light...light in everything. We are replacing heavy MGs with light ones, armored vehicles with light skinned vehicles, ground based combat with an ever increasing eye in the sky role to dictate movement on the ground. You cant take a crap without asking JOC for permission.

It's as if he loved the cold war so much he scaled Soviet force doctrine into ours. Do your own comparitive analysis on Soviet weapons systems, just remember to scale it down and you'll reach Rumsfeld so called vision.

Children throw in letters of resignation and Rumsfeld is apparently Bush's little child. Unfortunately for us, Bush is all to willing to pop it out everytime Rumy needs some cry tit.


Russian military doctrine was big on going heavy, quantity over quality, so which is it? The Rumsfeld led military (if you want to call it that) has had a pretty good track record in terms of its warfighting capability and its win/loss record. The days of overbloated Armored Divisions and all their mobility and logistics problems need to be solved. We need a lighter, more mobile Army that is capable of entering a theater with its log train and vehicles quicker than 6-8 weeks. How many tanks were actually destroyed in OIF I by armored units? Most were destroyed in place or in route to the front by USAF, USN and USMC air and Army AHs.

The time to adjust to future demands is now, not when its needed, becuase by then its too late. Will ANYONE at the Pentagon get it 100% right, no. Again, use your crystal ball if you have one to predict the future and its military needs. Either way, the status quo will not work nor will it win against future enemies.

But if you want to blunder around the battlefield, using basically 1950's technololgy, ignoring what modern technology can do for you, so be it.

[KB]

Yeah...I have to agree the writer gave it away near the end with that 'we need to give it to a proven democrat' comment. 2sheds, as usual was right.

And his logic, that if something is not 100% right - it is a failure, is a real stretch in logical thinking also.

Saying that there is an insurgency, so someone must be to blame for something. Or that troop numbers aren't what they should be so there must be a failure....is a bit weak. As if when there isn't 100% agreement among politicians - we must have had a failure?

By that standard I could declare that...

Medicare is a failure. People are still getting sick.

The War on Poverty is a failure. There are still poor people.

Social Security is a failure. Not all seniors can afford BMWs.

...and then demand to see an exit stratergy to all those failures.



Sorry, but even trying to give the author a break, I still think that its just another ex-general who wants to play politics and be a critic. You can't swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting one of those.

I didn't interpret the comment about needing a Democrat to replace Rumsfeld as an indication of the author's political leanings. On the contrary I interpreted it as an attempt to highlight a way of healing the gaping partisan divide in the US and build the bipartisan consensus needed to wage the GWOT...other examples would be FDR when he brought Wendell Wilkie and Henry Knox into his Administration in the 1940s, Nixon when he hired Daniel Patrick Moynihan, JFK when he hired Henry Cabot Lodge as Ambassador to South Vietnam, or Clinton when he brought in Republican Sen. Cohen as SecDef.

[Mastermind]

Melon's posts...x2

[eindhoven]

Russian military doctrine was big on going heavy, quantity over quality, so which is it? technololgy.

BS

What is a BMP or a BTR then? What is a Styker in comparison? or an Up Armored HMMWV? Wheeled over tracked is my point. I wont mention the airborne factor.

[ElHombre]

Haha, bring out the dead horse. Lets allow those inclined a chance to swing it a few times more, if it helps them sleep at night.

I wish I had a crystal ball to predict the future, see into our enemies organization, intent and plans, and of course, the audacity to use 20/20 hindsight to bash people in a tough situation, who carry more responsibility than those who criticize could ever imagine or hope to shoulder.

but a SoDs job is to understand what our military is and, more importantly, not capable of achieving. the idea that we could secure a hostile country the size of iraq with limited troops was a massive failure of judgement on rumsfeld's part, second only to invading iraq in the first place. that 's the kind of misjudgement that can ruin a country. that is why rumsfeld should have been thrown out the door. the fact that he hasn't just proves bush doesn't want to do his job.

[eindhoven]

[QUOTE=melon]Russian military doctrine was big on going heavy, quantity over quality, so which is it? The Rumsfeld led military (if you want to call it that) has had a pretty good track record in terms of its warfighting capability and its win/loss record. The days of overbloated Armored Divisions and all their mobility and logistics problems need to be solved. We need a lighter, more mobile Army that is capable of entering a theater with its log train and vehicles quicker than 6-8 weeks. How many tanks were actually destroyed in OIF I by armored units? Most were destroyed in place or in route to the front by USAF, USN and USMC air and Army AHs.

QUOTE]

Give me a f-ing break.

Arabs throw rocks at Armor. The Chinese, North Koreans, and other nations dont and sure as hell wont. I refuse to compare Iraqi army forces in either operation to the calibre of a Chinese armor man, artillery man, or infantryman. The Korean war never ended. Vietnam was not a victory despite battles having been won. Asia will not fight a light war so you can get your log train to the battle front supported by your whiz bang UAV and UGV forces with an overwatch of Land Warrior soldiers equipped with FCS.

I am not the one with narrow vision my friend because I never take my eyes off the overall picture of war.

[Mastermind]

I'm wondering here,,,,is it Rumy who is deficient or is the media? Seems to me the "Kill Rumy" shout came from the Democrats then the media picked it up like a banner...the gold fish bowl light is made to shine so much more brightly on every miniscuel mistake and goes immediately dim when there is a success....I think Rumy is doing fine...seems a great many of his generals think so too...and of course, the only opinion that counts is the Presidents...so all this is BS anyway.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The media and the left have hated the guy from the minute that his name was announced - so this is just the latest pile of leftist BS that they are throwing up on the wall to see if it sticks. At least they haven't manufactured any fake documents to go with the fake reality this time around.


horsepucky. either rumsfeld is responsible to the POTUS for the military or he isn't. rumsfeld has been given everything he asked for and the results are clear, he's a failure.

I don't recall saying that he wasn't responsible. What I have said is that he serves within a political reality where all things are not possible. His job is not to stand in front of the President and demand the moon. He can't have the Moon, and he knows it. His job is to conduct the war, within the administration's framework, and do it the way he thinks will be most successful. As I said, he had made mistakes, but I think that what the article puts forth as fact is an illusion constructed for political effect.



of course, this is all moot. bush just said a little while ago that he's pleased with rumsfeld's performance as SoD. which just gives further evidence that bush has no idea how to do his job either.

heh heh - well he still beat the best that the opposition could throw at him. Twice. One can only wonder at the appalling level of incompetence they would bring to office. Under one of their schemes, Rumsfeld's office would have been called the "Secretary of Peace". Where's the vomit icon?

[melon]

BS

What is a BMP or a BTR then? What is a Styker in comparison? or an Up Armored HMMWV? Wheeled over tracked is my point. I wont mention the airborne factor.

The BMP is an IFV, which was designed to carry infantry along side heavy tanks, protected from MG and artiliery fire, to provide support to rapidly moving armored formations. Yes, they were considered "heavy" forces, deployed in the THOUSANDS in Soviet armored and mech divisions, corps and army's. The BTR was a wheeled IFV, it has 8 wheels, and any comparison or similarities to the Stryker ends there. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex when it comes to military vehicle design? Who cares if they share a similar design background, so does the LAV-25, yet it is more than capable of handling its own. They were developed 40 years apart.

The Stryker was/is an interim design to bridge the gap between truely light infantry forces with nothing more heavy than then the M1045/M1046TOW Humvee and the heavier M1A1 HC/Bradley equipped ACAV and armored units. We had nothing to fit and equip the forces going into this type of battlefield, a built up, urban area where the local infustrucure could not handle the stress imposed upon it by heavy armored units. A lighter design allows for deployment WITHOUT the heavy log train and support units (ie AVLB's) required with a heavy unit, giving us flexibility and more choices. Wheels allow for faster speed, easier maintenence, and greater ground clearance. Tracked vehicles are better over certain terrain, but the same could be said for wheels in certain circumstances. Neither is better than the other in this regard. It is not a tank, nor was it designed to replace them on teh battlefied. But if you have some idea that IFV's will be as tough as tanks, then you are mistaken. (I wont go into the simple fact that the Stryker was designed in the 1990's)

There is no need to purchase a new tank or tracked vehicle for the near future, why spend the money and resources on it? Nobody else in the world is developing anything capable of taking on an M1A2, the Russians are only upgrading a 20 year old design (same age as our M1) and Chinese are just buying those. The M1A2 CEP and the M1A1 AIM will meet any possible requirements on the future battlefield for the next 2 decades, and is STILL the best designed and most battle tested MBT in the world. We have met the mechanical limits of tank design, we can reform it, better it, sharpen it some, but not much else. Speed of attack will be the future of combat, and the limiting speeds of tracks are why they are being passed over for the next generation of armored vehicles. But again, we will still possess the king of the killing fields for the next 20 or so years.

[melon]

Give me a f-ing break.

Arabs throw rocks at Armor. The Chinese, North Koreans, and other nations dont and sure as hell wont. I refuse to compare Iraqi army forces in either operation to the calibre of a Chinese armor man, artillery man, or infantryman. The Korean war never ended. Vietnam was not a victory despite battles having been won. Asia will not fight a light war so you can get your log train to the battle front supported by your whiz bang UAV and UGV forces with an overwatch of Land Warrior soldiers equipped with FCS.

I am not the one with narrow vision my friend because I never take my eyes off the overall picture of war.

Please, lead the way, tell us of your "overall picture of war." And dont pigeohole my argument or assume I think in any certain way, its arrogant and condescending. And Iraq has been a perfect testing ground for infantry tactics concerning tank support and vise versa. Those "rocks" are the latest generation of RPG's and extremely powerful IED's, sometimes employed poorly, other times with the precision of a seasoned warrior. No, its not a labratory for wide open, armored thrusts, but still a dangerous battlefield nonetheless where other forms of warfare can be learned and applied in the future.

It is impossible to invade a nuclear armed nation, unless you can eliminate them before hand. Invasion is the death of a nation's government, placed into a such a position of "use it or lose it," any beach head would be a prime target. Such ports or beach heads where you unload heavy tanks, IFV's and the log units are where you marshall your heavy forces before commiting them to battle. A nuclear armed Germany would have ended the Normandy invasion on the beach, the USMC Pacific campaigns would have never succeeded, same for Inchon. Large, massed formations of invading armor are not neccessary or possible anymore (at least in your asian warfare notion), with air powers PGM's improving and moving into the tactical, small unit realm of combat, they can much more easily and cheaply ( in terms of cost, and lives) destroy an armored division than 10,000 men wrapped up in Chobbam and reactive armor.

That is not to say there is not a place for them, but the sole anti-armor duty is no longer in the hands of tankers. So the future need is for a high survivability, fast moving, low maintanence vehicle, with a potent, accurate weapon system. In other words, not a tank. At least not one designed to use todays weapon systems, again, we already field the best in this department.


If you look real hard, you will see the Army in the next 10 years or so, transform itself into a land based version of the USMC, with Regimental Combat Teams and expeditionary style, deployable units, with an emphisis on speed and lethality, though without the maritime and OTH capability. These types of formations will remove layers of redundancy, which currently permeate almost all levels of the Army. Unless you wish we field an army capable of invading mainland China, which is not going to happen in your lifetime, it will just sit by, doing nothing, wasting money. Nor is the threat of such a force of any real future consternation for the PLA, they know invading mainland China is as suicidal as any attempt to invade the US. Similar situation with North Korea, the South would provide the heavy lifting and are more than capable of handling the very overstated NKA military capabilities.

[ElHombre]

I don't recall saying that he wasn't responsible. What I have said is that he serves within a political reality where all things are not possible. His job is not to stand in front of the President and demand the moon. He can't have the Moon, and he knows it. His job is to conduct the war, within the administration's framework, and do it the way he thinks will be most successful. As I said, he had made mistakes, but I think that what the article puts forth as fact is an illusion constructed for political effect.

but he hasn't even done the job you just outlined. rumsfeld (and others like wolfowitz below him) was the one who set the outlines for the iraq war. he's the one who set and approved inadequate troop levels. by all standards, he's done a horrible job unless one wishes to make the claim that all is going well in iraq (a sentiment not shared by the former iraqi PM, for starters).

[Mastermind]

So what if you deny Iran her Nukes...by first bombing, then invading...do you think her fellow Muslim nuclear power Pakistan would then launch a nuke against the US invasion fleet? If that happened, do you think US would then Nuke Pakistan? If that happens......

[remo williams]

The media and the left have hated the guy from the minute that his name was announced - so this is just the latest pile of leftist BS that they are throwing up on the wall to see if it sticks. At least they haven't manufactured any fake documents to go with the fake reality this time around.





how wise is it to go before the very media over the course of five yrs with at least three of them being involved in two major conflicts,and switch up your story? It's a matter of common sense to me to have your shyte together especially if your making a case and stating your facts before someone with pen paper and video tape. It's suicidal if they already have animosity towards you to begin with. That's not political it's common sense. I'm not sure exactly what the magic answer is,but to assess the situation and proceed as we have,and not take credit/blame and actively move to fix it is somewhat bitch. Wouldn't you agree? It wasn't anyone but him stating that we had to go to war with what we have..with inadequately armored humvees,and to write off an insurgency so early on which has only grown. and as it's now known that the "group think,yes man" phenomena occurred while he was at the helm. the media or "liberals" were not involved in that anymore than many of us were. Simply put,he fcuked up.There's nothing partisan in that,and actively seeking a solution shouldn't be partisan either..Personally I'm growing tired of the "liberal conservative" arguement to actually doing something resulting in a clear course of action with tangible visible results.

[Hiroshima]

Seesh...well, this should really be in the Politics section...

Anyway, my two cents are this: look at the man's record. I don't agree with some of his decisions, but he's perfectly qualified to make those kinds of mistakes.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

Beyond that, Melon, the stryker is/was (if they fixed many of the problems) a stop-gap measure..not much of a bridge beyond that ...and last I checked, the mobile gun version is still having problems with the auto-loading system... anyway, good points on your side of the discussion.

[melon]

Seesh...well, this should really be in the Politics section...

Anyway, my two cents are this: look at the man's record. I don't agree with some of his decisions, but he's perfectly qualified to make those kinds of mistakes.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

Beyond that, Melon, the stryker is/was (if they fixed many of the problems) a stop-gap measure..not much of a bridge beyond that ...and last I checked, the mobile gun version is still having problems with the auto-loading system... anyway, good points on your side of the discussion.

Thanks, I touched upon this, but didn't clarify specifically the purpose of the Stryker, which has preformed rather well. I draw this from those who use and maintain these mini-hogs on a daily basis.

[Apathy]

Yeah, thats' just what America needs right now..."A proven Democrat" leading our troops...vomit, vomit, vomit...

Oh for f*ck sake.

[Hiroshima]

Thanks, I touched upon this, but didn't clarify specifically the purpose of the Stryker, which has preformed rather well. I draw this from those who use and maintain these mini-hogs on a daily basis.


You mean they got away from contractor based maintenance on those things?? ALRIGHT! Saves money having the grunts who have to drive those beasts around...did they fix that seat belt problem yet?

[melon]

You mean they got away from contractor based maintenance on those things?? ALRIGHT! Saves money having the grunts who have to drive those beasts around...did they fix that seat belt problem yet?


Let me clarify, my opinion was drawn anecdotal and official evidence offered up, from this site and others. For this question, someone else is going to have to answer it. My only sources are former USMC buddies of mine.

[Limeyfellow]

Rumsfeld has been a failure and linked to most military scandels and the support of most of our enemies for the past 30 odd years. How he still gets in the government no one really knows.

[little fatso]

no matter what is said, or who takes his place if he should leave....it will be a politician, god forbid democrate or republican as well, the politics of men do nothing but harm to the military, each man thinking with is own gain and really little care for the military personnel fighting and defending around the world. The military in the end has no say on how it should fight a war or how to equip the troops (even though they are the experianced ones) no, those jobs are givin to the politicians,men who dont know what the hell they are doing, men worried about votes, nothing more, nothing less.

[ElHombre]

Rumsfeld has been a failure and linked to most military scandels and the support of most of our enemies for the past 30 odd years. How he still gets in the government no one really knows.

cheney (rumsfeld and cheney were buddies back in the ford administration) wanted him as SoD.

[remo williams]

cheney (rumsfeld and cheney were buddies back in the ford administration) wanted him as SoD.

this is true,as there's been alot of footage showing rummy meeting with Saddam insane.Here's the question,since they know we have a recipt for the wmd's we sold them in their fight against Iran,does anyone think it a bit dubious that not only did rummy shortchange the troops in being able to control the situation,but that he is in a position to do so after being a key player in the events that more or less set the stage for our latest ME excursion?

[melon]

this is true,as there's been alot of footage showing rummy meeting with Saddam insane.Here's the question,since they know we have a recipt for the wmd's we sold them in their fight against Iran,does anyone think it a bit dubious that not only did rummy shortchange the troops in being able to control the situation,but that he is in a position to do so after being a key player in the events that more or less set the stage for our latest ME excursion?

There is not "alot of footage," just a 30 second loop that is continously played and replayed. We also did not transfer chem weapons to Iraq, but may have provided some detail and technology transfers to help them along with what they were trying to accomplish. Given our alternative and the then current political and stategic gulf situation, we needed to ensure that Iran did not succeed in their war with Iraq.

The answer to the rest of your post is, no.

[remo williams]

There is not "alot of footage," just a 30 second loop that is continously played and replayed. We also did not transfer chem weapons to Iraq, but may have provided some detail and technology transfers to help them along with what they were trying to accomplish. Given our alternative and the then current political and stategic gulf situation, we needed to ensure that Iran did not succeed in their war with Iraq.

The answer to the rest of your post is, no.

not alot of footage on now,but during the Iran Iraq war there was.It may be the same 30 sec being shown now,like some golden smoking gun,but i remember seeing more than 30 sec when i watched the news.especially preceeding GW1 The name of the game is archives.If anyone had real access,i'm sure you'd find more than a 30sec clip.As for chem weapons,
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/ushadkeyrole.html
http://complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
I'm afraid history speakes for itself...If we didn't have any type of involvement then all chronology of such is a lie...Regardless we're there now and if Rummy isn't capable of getting it done right the first time,then he should be ridin' the pine.